Ending poverty, the liberal way.

[boyando]

An interesting theory.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967

[Vort]

An interesting theory.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967

If by "interesting" you mean "horrific", "disgusting", and/or "appalling", then I agree, it's quite interesting.

[NeuroTypical]

I wonder if we might be just a tiiiiny bit overzealous with taking that website and calling it "the liberal way". I know at least three liberals who are not actively attempting to "hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse".

LM

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Maybe slightly off topic, but the title is "ending poverty" so I think this applies.

Doctrine and Covenants 104

16 "But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low."

Mormons were the first communists...

While we're all crying havoc and running around scared of all these machinations we imagine behind the scenes of our government and social leaders "ending poverty, the liberal way" - we SHOULD be talking about ending poverty the Mormon way.

[Dravin]

Doctrine and Covenants 104

16 "But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low."

Mormons were the first communists...

Not in the commonly accepted understanding of the term. Private property still existed in the United Order and furthermore was voluntary, quite different in function if not in purpose from state controlled property. That said, "Each according to his ability, each according to his need" is something that could be said to apply to the United Order.

[talisyn]

I wonder if we might be just a tiiiiny bit overzealous with taking that website and calling it "the liberal way". I know at least three liberals who are not actively attempting to "hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse".

LM

If I'm not one of those 3 then you know 4

[talisyn]

ending poverty, the conservative way

Swift: A Modest Proposal

[Vort]

ending poverty, the conservative way

Swift: A Modest Proposal

Clever but meaningless. Swift's famous essay dealt with a parody of 18th-century attitudes. Cloward and Piven's paper is all too real, all too literal, and produced by two respected members of the radical leftist establishment.

I find it ironic (yet not surprising) that the response to a conservative pointing out actual and respected leftist antiestablishment doctrine is to cite as a "conservative plan" an unreal, purposely merciless plan produced hundreds of years ago by someone who didn't believe what he was writing in order to mock his political opponents.

Is it any wonder that meaningful political dialog is almost totally lacking in the US today?

(Btw, what do we expect the response to be? "Hey, lighten up! It was just a joke!" Sound familiar?)

Edited November 19, 2009 by Vort

[Just_A_Guy]

ending poverty, the conservative way

Swift: A Modest Proposal

You have much to learn, young Padawan.

This is the conservative way.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Amusing Ourselves to Death by Stuart McMillen - cartoon Recombinant Records

[applepansy]

Maybe slightly off topic, but the title is "ending poverty" so I think this applies.

Doctrine and Covenants 104

16 "But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low."

Mormons were the first communists...

While we're all crying havoc and running around scared of all these machinations we imagine behind the scenes of our government and social leaders "ending poverty, the liberal way" - we SHOULD be talking about ending poverty the Mormon way.

Without infinging on anyone's agency.

[MarginOfError]

Maybe slightly off topic, but the title is "ending poverty" so I think this applies.

Doctrine and Covenants 104

16 "But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low."

Mormons were the first communists...

While we're all crying havoc and running around scared of all these machinations we imagine behind the scenes of our government and social leaders "ending poverty, the liberal way" - we SHOULD be talking about ending poverty the Mormon way.

It's crucial to point out that ending poverty the Mormon way requires local intervention. The Law of Consecration was administrated at the community level, not at the national level.

[Vort]

It's crucial to point out that ending poverty the Mormon way requires local intervention. The Law of Consecration was administrated at the community level, not at the national level.

It is also worth noting that what you are calling the "law of consecration", which is more properly identified as the united order, was entered into by covenant and required the participant to dedicate himself totally to the work he did in the order as well as live by a very strict, very high moral code of conduct. It was as far removed from government welfare (or, for that matter, from communism) as can be imagined.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I think you're all missing the point. I'll take some responsibility there for making a statement that I knew would be ambiguous, misunderstood, and controversial. My argument is not that Mormons are essentially communists with a faith structure centered around common ownership and common responsibility. Though that is a valid argument. My argument is not that capitalism in all its various modes, methods, and forms, is completely and totally dependent upon selfishness and is the antithesis of what Zion represents. Though that too is a valid argument. My argument is that we, as holders of the truth, should spend less time discussing all the ways in which the world has done things wrong, and focus on all the ways the Lord has taught us to do things right.

MarginOfError is right, the United Order (aka Law of Consecration - the label in this case is arbitrary) was administered on a local level. Allow me to take that one step further - Zion must be built (or poverty ended, if you like) on the most "local" level possible: in our homes and in our home/visiting teaching routes, and in our wards. As much as I would love (and I would love) to intelligently discuss the thoughts I mentioned above and how they can apply on a global scale, I think it would be a better use of our time to discuss ways that we can build Zion, as we've been commanded to do, and develop unity on these "local" levels, as we've been commanded to do. I think that discussion would be far more productive, and would be far more effective at ending poverty.

[prisonchaplain]

This is relevent, but also full of rabbit trails: Of Governments and Cows

[Moksha]

I wonder if we might be just a tiiiiny bit overzealous with taking that website and calling it "the liberal way". I know at least three liberals who are not actively attempting to "hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse".

LM

Good point. Our primary method is to take government controls off of everything, so that if our food, water and air doesn't kill us through unrelenting pollution, then our greed is unregulated business practices will. That is a sure way to bring down capitalism and return us to our cave dwelling roots! Besides, the cave man was the ultimate libertarian. Nothing shackled him except for a pile of falling rocks.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Moksha
spellum shakl the write way

[Vort]

the United Order (aka Law of Consecration - the label in this case is arbitrary)

The label is not arbitrary. They mean different things.

If I said "plural marriage (aka law of chastity -- the label is arbitrary)", you would immediately recognize this as incorrect. The same applies to the above statement.

We are under covenant to live the law of consecration right now, today. We no longer live the united order.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

The label is not arbitrary. They mean different things.

If I said "plural marriage (aka law of chastity -- the label is arbitrary)", you would immediately recognize this as incorrect. The same applies to the above statement.

We are under covenant to live the law of consecration right now, today. We no longer live the united order.

Thank you so much for missing the point - AGAIN.

But a more approprate analogy you might have used would have been "plural marriage (aka the new and everlasting covenant - the label is arbitrary)". The New and Everlasting Covenant is the full covenant of the Gospel and includes all laws and ordinances starting with faith, repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost and continuing on through the Endoment (which includes the sealing ordinance). However, the same phrase is also regularly understood in the church to refer to the covenant and law of marriage, of which plural marriage is a part. The Law of Consecration is all-encompassing (which, in its fulness, we are NOT under covenant to live at this time), and the "United Order" is a part of that law. More specifically, the United Order is a set of circumstances, guidelines, and standards by which the Law of Consecration was carried out.

Now, it'd be nice if somebody were to comment on what my real point was, and not poke at some tangental detail.

[MarginOfError]

I would say the United Order would be better described as an (not necessarily the) implementation of the Law of Consecration. It was an implementation that suited the needs and circumstances of the time.

I would also argue that those of us who have received our endowment are under covenant and obligation to live by the Law of Consecration, but today's implementation is extremely different from that of the United Order. If the Church were to organize a new communal arrangement, it likely wouldn't look much like the United Order at all.

Lastly, the Law of Consecration and the United Order are not all that removed from communism. Communism, remember, is a broad description. There are fundamental differences between the Law of Consecration and Marxism, but Marxism is only one ideology covered by the umbrella of communism. At the very heart of it, though, the LDS religion seems to believe in a communism of local administration with personal property and separated from civil government.

[boyando]

Thank you so much for missing the point - AGAIN.

But a more approprate analogy you might have used would have been "plural marriage (aka the new and everlasting covenant - the label is arbitrary)". The New and Everlasting Covenant is the full covenant of the Gospel and includes all laws and ordinances starting with faith, repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost and continuing on through the Endoment (which includes the sealing ordinance). However, the same phrase is also regularly understood in the church to refer to the covenant and law of marriage, of which plural marriage is a part. The Law of Consecration is all-encompassing (which, in its fulness, we are NOT under covenant to live at this time), and the "United Order" is a part of that law. More specifically, the United Order is a set of circumstances, guidelines, and standards by which the Law of Consecration was carried out.

Now, it'd be nice if somebody were to comment on what my real point was, and not poke at some tangental detail.

If your point is that to end poverty we must spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I get it.

The Book of Mormon shows over and over again how living the Gospel, as a nation, brings prosperity to everyone. And when the people turn away from the Gospel, only a few have riches. Sounds a little (if by little you mean a lot) like today.

[talisyn]

Clever but meaningless. Swift's famous essay dealt with a parody of 18th-century attitudes. Cloward and Piven's paper is all too real, all too literal, and produced by two respected members of the radical leftist establishment.

I find it ironic (yet not surprising) that the response to a conservative pointing out actual and respected leftist antiestablishment doctrine is to cite as a "conservative plan" an unreal, purposely merciless plan produced hundreds of years ago by someone who didn't believe what he was writing in order to mock his political opponents.

Is it any wonder that meaningful political dialog is almost totally lacking in the US today?

(Btw, what do we expect the response to be? "Hey, lighten up! It was just a joke!" Sound familiar?)

My fault, I assumed the link in the OP was in the same humor category as Mr. Swift's essay

[Vort]

My fault, I assumed the link in the OP was in the same humor category as Mr. Swift's essay

I wish it were. Unfortunately, those leftists were (and are) all too serious about what they proposed.

[DigitalShadow]

I wish it were. Unfortunately, those leftists were (and are) all too serious about what they proposed.

Fortunately though, a "radical leftist" plan from nearly 50 years ago is not particularly relevant to the average liberal today and certainly not "the liberal way" as the title of this thread claims.

[Vort]

Fortunately though, a "radical leftist" plan from nearly 50 years ago is not particularly relevant to the average liberal today and certainly not "the liberal way" as the title of this thread claims.

True and false. The existence of one plan from decades ago (closer to 40 years than 50) hardly reflects current leftist ideals. However, the authors of said paper were important and highly influential figures in leftist politics (the surviving one still is). For example, they were the impetus behind the "Motor Voter" laws. So saying that their paper and their work as a whole has had little effect on leftist political ideals is simply ignoring reality.

[DigitalShadow]

True and false. The existence of one plan from decades ago (closer to 40 years than 50) hardly reflects current leftist ideals. However, the authors of said paper were important and highly influential figures in leftist politics (the surviving one still is). For example, they were the impetus behind the "Motor Voter" laws. So saying that their paper and their work as a whole has had little effect on leftist political ideals is simply ignoring reality.

What I'm saying is that the average liberal today would not support such a plan which directly contradicts the implication of the OP. I am not particularly interested in politics and political leaders so I can't say with any certainty, but my feeling is that just because an influential figure wrote a paper does not mean that particular paper is equally influential.